In Re: R.G.D., Appeal of: J.G. ( 2023 )

J-S35033-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN RE: R.G.D., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: J.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 926 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered May 31, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): CP-31-OC-01-2023
IN RE: B.C.D., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF J.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 927 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered May 31, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): CP-31-OC-02-2023
IN RE: G.A.L.D., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: J.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 928 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered May 31, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): CP-31-OC-03-2023
J-S35033-23
IN RE: R.W.D., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: J.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 929 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered May 31, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): CP-31-OC-04-2023
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 20, 2023
J.G. (“Mother”) appeals from the May 31, 2023 decrees of the orphans’
court terminating her parental rights to her children, R.G.D., born in 2008,
B.C.D., born in 2011, G.A.L.D., born in 2015, and R.W.D., born in 2017
(collectively, “Children”). After careful review, we affirm the termination of
Mother’s parental rights to Children.
Children first came to the attention of the Huntingdon County Children
and Youth Services Agency (“Agency”) in March 2020 based upon concerns of
drug use by Mother and Children’s father, R.W.D. II (“Father”), Mother and
Father’s parenting abilities, and the general well-being of Children. The
Agency also developed concerns related to domestic violence perpetrated by
Mother against Father.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-S35033-23
On July 12, 2021, the Agency filed applications for emergency protective
custody of Children citing Father’s report that Mother drove under the
influence of alcohol with Father and three of the Children in the vehicle and
that Mother also punched Father in the face.1 The applications were denied,
but the orphans’ court ordered Mother to be removed from the family home.
On August 4, 2021, the Agency filed further applications for emergency
protective custody after witnessing Mother’s vehicle parked in the driveway of
the family home. Additionally, in early August 2021, Father threatened an
Agency employee regarding the potential removal of Children from the home
and he was found to be in possession of drugs upon his arrest for the threats.
The applications for emergency protective custody were granted on
August 4, 2021. Children entered foster care on that date, and they were
placed in their current foster home in December 2021. On August 13, 2021,
Children were adjudicated as dependent. As part of the adjudication orders,
Mother was ordered to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, with failure
to submit a sample being considered a positive result, complete drug and
alcohol counseling, and complete an Agency approved parenting program.
Adjudication Orders, 8/13/21, at 3-4. The permanency plans established by
the Agency required, inter alia, Mother to complete couples counseling with
Father. See, e.g., Permanency Plan (CP-31-DP-0000028-2021), 7/26/23, at
____________________________________________
1 The records in the dependency matters were incorporated into the records
in the instant termination proceedings. N.T., 4/6/23, at 2.
-3-
J-S35033-23
16. The orphans’ court also ordered Mother to participate in an “approved
parenting assessment.” Permanency Review Orders, 8/26/22, at 6.
The Agency filed the petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s
parental rights on January 4, 2023.2 A hearing on the termination petitions
was held on April 6, 2023, at which the Agency presented its case in full. After
the hearing, Mother initially agreed to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights
to Children; however, she revoked her relinquishment several days later in a
letter sent to the orphans’ court.3 See Letter, filed 4/27/23. Thereafter, the
case proceeded to a second hearing on May 3, 2023, at which Mother testified.
On May 31, 2023, the orphans’ court issued decrees involuntarily terminating
Mother’s parental rights to Children pursuant to Section 2511(a)(8) and (b) of
the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b). Mother filed timely notices of
appeal of the decrees at each lower court docket.4 The appeals were then
consolidated by this Court sua sponte.
____________________________________________
2 The orphans’ court appointed legal interests counsel, as well as a separate
guardian ad litem, to represent Children in the termination proceedings. See
In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1235 (Pa. 2020) (holding that
appellate courts should engage in sua sponte review to determine if orphans’
court appointed legal interest counsel to represent children in contested
termination proceedings).
3 On April 11, 2023, after a separate hearing, Father filed petitions to
voluntarily relinquish his parental rights to Children, which the orphans’ court
approved in decrees entered the following day.
4 Mother filed concise statements of errors complained of on appeal
contemporaneously with her notices of appeal, as required by Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i). On July 10, 2023, the orphans’ court issued a statement
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), indicating that it was relying on its earlier May
31, 2023 opinion.
-4-
J-S35033-23
On appeal, Mother argues that the Agency did not prove that the
conditions which led to Children’s removal and placement in foster care
continued to exist, as required by Section 2511(a)(8). Mother argues that,
while she has an extensive history of drug abuse that led to Children’s
removal, her last positive drug test was on May 2, 2022. Mother asserts that
she completed drug treatment in June 2022 and her only positive tests after
that date were for buprenorphine and benzodiazepine, which she was
prescribed. Mother contends that the orphans’ court overlooked her
completion of drug treatment and sobriety, which “show[s that] she is able to
remedy the conditions which led to the initial placement of [C]hildren and that
this drug use issue no longer exists.” Mother’s Brief at 14-15.
Mother maintains that, contrary to the concerns raised by the
caseworker at the hearing, she has retained stability since completing the drug
treatment program as she is now not using drugs and is living with her
grandmother. She also observes that the pending criminal charges that were
discussed at the hearing5 all pertain to events that occurred prior to the
removal of Children and thus predate her recent efforts to address the factors
that led to the removal. Mother further notes that she completed one of the
____________________________________________
5 In November 2022, Mother was charged with endangering the welfare of
children, corruption of minors, recklessly endangering another person, and
furnishing drug-free urine related to events that occurred between May 1,
2018 and August 3, 2021. N.T., 4/6/23, at 37, 41-42. Children are the victims
of at least the endangering the welfare of children charges. Id. at 42. Mother
was briefly incarcerated following her arrest. Id. at 31; N.T., 5/3/23, at 6.
-5-
J-S35033-23
programs required of her by the Agency and she was not afforded an
opportunity to restart other programs, including a parenting program, after
she obtained sobriety.
We conclude that Mother has waived her sole appellate issue as a result
of her failure to include the issue in her Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925
concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement . . . are waived.”); In
re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2017) (noting, in the context
of appeal from the termination of parental rights, that waiver for failure to
include an issue in a concise statement “is mandatory, and this Court may not
craft ad hoc exceptions or engage in selective enforcement”). Mother’s
concise statements, which were filed at each lower court docket, state as their
sole issue: “Did the trial court abuse its discretion and fail to consider the best
interests of the child by terminating the parental rights of the Mother?”
Concise Statements, 6/30/23, ¶1. Mother does not mention in her concise
statements the question of whether the Agency met its burden of proof to
show that the “conditions which led to the removal or placement of
[C]hild[ren] continue to exist,” the issue she challenges on appeal. 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 2511(a)(8). Instead, the issue Mother preserved in her concise statements
relating to the orphans’ court’s consideration of the “best interests” of Children
relates to the separate consideration under Section 2511(a)(8) of whether
“termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the
child,” id., and the required analysis under Section 2511(b) of whether
-6-
J-S35033-23
termination serves the “developmental, physical and emotional needs and
welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). Mother does not present a “needs
and welfare” argument in her brief.6 As the sole issue that Mother argues in
her brief was not included in her concise statements, her issue is waived on
appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d at 466.
Nevertheless, we find that, even if Mother had preserved her appellate
challenge to the issue of whether the conditions which led to the removal or
placement of Children continued to exist as of the date of filing of the
termination petition, this issue lacks merit. Our review is governed by the
following precepts:
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases
requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and
credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported
by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse
of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
the record would support a different result. We have previously
emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand
observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.
____________________________________________
6 The statement of questions portion of Mother’s brief also only indicates that
she challenges the orphans’ court failure to consider whether termination
served the “best interests” of Children. Mother’s Brief at 5. While an issue
not set forth in the statement of questions is generally deemed waived,
Mother’s brief otherwise clearly indicates the issue she in fact sought to raise,
and therefore we do not find waiver on this ground. Werner v. Werner, 149
A.3d 338, 341 (Pa. Super. 2016).
-7-
J-S35033-23
In re J.R.R., 229 A.3d 8, 11 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quoting In re T.S.M., 71
A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013)). The petitioner bears the burden of proving
grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence,
which is defined as “testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing
as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance,
of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re L.W., 267 A.3d 517, 522 (Pa.
Super. 2021) (citation omitted).
Pursuant to Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, the orphans’ court must
find that petitioner established grounds for termination of parental rights
under one of the eleven enumerated grounds set forth in subsection (a) and
the court must then proceed to assess the petition under subsection (b), which
focuses on the child’s needs and welfare. In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d
343, 359 (Pa. 2021). Here, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental
rights pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(8), and subsection (b), which provide as
follows:
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child may
be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds:
* * *
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent
by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an
agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of
removal or placement, the conditions which led to the
removal or placement of the child continue to exist and
termination of parental rights would best serve the needs
and welfare of the child.
* * *
-8-
J-S35033-23
(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights
of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant
to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any
efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein
which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the
filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b).
In order to satisfy Section 2511(a)(8), the petitioner must prove that:
(1) the child has been removed from the parent’s care for at least 12 months;
(2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement still exist; and (3)
that termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of
the child.7 In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 943 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Termination pursuant to Section 2511(a)(8) does not require an evaluation of
a parent’s willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that led to the
removal or placement of the child. Id.; In re Adoption of M.A.B., 166 A.3d
434, 446 (Pa. Super. 2017). Rather, the relevant inquiry is focused upon
whether the at-issue conditions have been “remedied” such that “reunification
of parent and child is imminent at the time of the hearing.” In re I.J., 972
____________________________________________
7 There is no dispute that the Agency satisfied the first element of Section
2511(a)(8), that Children were removed from Mother’s care for more than 12
months as of the date of the filing of the termination petition. 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(a)(8). As discussed infra, we conclude that the Agency met its burden
of proof as to the third element of subsection (a)(8) and under subsection (b).
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b).
-9-
J-S35033-23
A.2d 5, 11 (Pa. Super. 2009). The lower court may not give any consideration
to efforts to remedy the conditions that gave rise to removal or placement
that were initiated after the filing of the termination petition. 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(b).
This Court has acknowledged:
[T]he application of Section (a)(8) may seem harsh when the
parent has begun to make progress toward resolving the problems
that had led to removal of her children. By allowing for
termination when the conditions that led to removal continue to
exist after a year, the statute implicitly recognizes that a child’s
life cannot be held in abeyance while the parent is unable to
perform the actions necessary to assume parenting
responsibilities. This Court cannot and will not subordinate
indefinitely a child’s need for permanence and stability to a
parent’s claims of progress and hope for the future. Indeed, we
work under statutory and case law that contemplates only a short
period of time, to wit eighteen months, in which to complete the
process of either reunification or adoption for a child who has been
placed in foster care.
I.J., 972 A.2d at 11-12 (emphasis and internal citations omitted).
Christi Shawley, an Agency caseworker, testified at the April 6, 2023
hearing regarding the Agency’s concerns with Mother dating back to the
Agency’s first involvement with the family in March 2020, as well as the goals
and services that were required of Mother for reunification with Children after
their removal in August 2021. Shawley stated that the Agency’s concerns for
Mother were her “[d]rug use, lack of completion and cooperation with court-
ordered services[,] and lack of stability.” N.T., 4/6/23, at 25. With respect
to Mother’s drug use, Shawley stated that there were 33 completed or
attempted drug tests of Mother, with 9 positive tests for illegal substances, 16
- 10 -
J-S35033-23
positive tests for only prescription drugs, 1 negative test, and 7 attempted
tests when Mother was not home. Id. at 25-26. The 9 positive tests for illegal
substances stretched from March 2021 to June 2022, and included such
substances as alcohol, methamphetamines, fentanyl, and ecstasy. Id. at 26-
30, 43. Mother also tested positive for buprenorphine and benzodiazepine,
which she claimed to have been prescribed, although the Agency never
received confirmation of her prescriptions. Id. at 29-31.
Shawley next testified as to Mother’s failure to complete court-ordered
services. Mother was scheduled for biweekly, supervised visits with Children,
although her participation was inconsistent due to periods of incarceration and
Mother’s use of unprescribed drugs, with a positive result resulting in the
cancelation of visits. Id. at 34-35. Mother also canceled on several occasions
based upon lack of transportation, despite the fact that the Agency always
provides transportation if sufficient notice is given. Id. at 35-36. Shawley
described rule violations by Mother “at almost every single visit,” including
Mother inviting unannounced guests, talking to Children about the foster
home, and whispering to Children during visits. Id. at 36. Mother was never
able to proceed to unsupervised visits, and visitation was finally suspended in
August 2022 at the request of Children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) due to
emotional distress and other behavioral concerns around the time of the visits.
Id. at 35, 47. Children’s issues related to the visits included over or under
eating, clingy behavior, anxiety, R.G.D. shutting herself in her room and
refusing to attend the visits, and B.C.D. having nightmares. Id. at 48. At the
- 11 -
J-S35033-23
visits, Mother “struggled” to control Children, while R.G.D. was “very
parentified” and would take over the role of disciplining the younger Children
in place of Mother. Id. at 48-49.
Shawley testified that Mother failed to complete the required drug and
alcohol assessment; she completed an initial intake but was then discharged
on March 11, 2022. Id. at 31-32. Shawley stated that Mother completed a
second intake on June 8, 2022 and a closing notice was then sent on
November 23, 2022 due to lack of participation. Id. According to Shawley,
Mother told her that “she didn’t need” drug and alcohol counseling. Id. at 47;
see also N.T., 5/3/23, at 11 (Mother confirming that she refused to
participate in drug and alcohol counseling when requested to do so in August
2022). Shawley explained that Mother also failed to complete the required
Proud to be a Parent program8 and Mother and Father also failed to engage in
couples counseling that was recommended based on their history of domestic
violence. N.T., 4/6/23, at 31, 46. Shawley stated that Mother also failed to
fulfill the Agency’s reunification goal that she complete an attachment and
bonding assessment, despite Shawley reminding Mother about this goal and
providing Mother with the counselor’s contact information on several
____________________________________________
8 Tammy Lucas, an educator with the Proud to be a Parent program, testified
that it was “very difficult” to schedule Mother to attend sessions despite
multiple voicemail messages that were left for her. N.T., 4/6/23, at 19-20.
Mother eventually began the program in January 2022, completing 8 of 13
scheduled sessions, with 4 cancellations by Mother. Id. at 20-22. Ultimately,
after Mother did not respond to an interest letter Lucas sent, Lucas closed
Mother out of the Proud to be a Parent program on April 12, 2022. Id.
- 12 -
J-S35033-23
occasions.9 Id. at 32-33. Mother did, however, complete the Hope parenting
program in September 2022 after a “struggle” with attendance. Id. at 31.
Upon careful review of the record, it is clear that there was competent
evidence before the trial court to show, under the heightened standard of
proof applicable in termination of parental rights cases, that the conditions
which led to the removal of Children and their placement into foster care still
existed as of the date of the filing of the termination petition. While Mother
did attain sobriety by June 2022, this does not compensate for her numerous
other failings to address the conditions that led to Children’s removal. Mother
did not submit to court-ordered drug and alcohol counseling—even though she
was provided an opportunity to do so after becoming sober—as she felt she
“didn’t need” the program. Id. at 47. Mother also failed to engage in couples
counseling, participate in the attachment and bonding assessment, or
____________________________________________
9 Maddie Sell, the counselor who was retained to complete the attachment and
bonding assessment, testified that she had to reach out multiple times to
Mother in August and September of 2022 to schedule an appointment for the
assessment and eventually was able to schedule a session for September 30,
2022. N.T., 4/6/23, at 2-4. However, on the morning of the assessment,
Mother decided not to attend the appointment when Sell did not immediately
respond to Mother’s voicemail. Id. at 4. Sell made three additional attempts
to reschedule with Mother, without success. Id. at 4, 16-17. Ultimately, after
the termination petition was filed on January 4, 2023, Sell reached back out
to Mother “as a courtesy,” and Mother then agreed to two meetings with Sell.
Id. at 4-5; see also N.T., 5/3/23, at 9 (Mother agreeing that she did not meet
with Sell until January 2023). However, Sell could not fully complete the
assessment of Mother because Mother did not submit to an adult attachment
interview. N.T., 4/6/23, at 5-6.
- 13 -
J-S35033-23
complete both of the required parenting programs.10 Mother further struggled
with visitation of Children as she missed many visits due to unprescribed drug
use, she failed to follow the rules on multiple occasions, and the visits were
ultimately suspended due to emotional distress of Children. We additionally
note that, while Mother argues on appeal that she has achieved stability in
her home life, this was contradicted by testimony of the caseworker that she
did not have a consistent home over the 15 months between the removal of
Children and the termination hearings “because it was back and forth between
staying with [Father] and staying with” Mother’s grandmother. Id. at 46-47.
Accordingly, we conclude that Mother’s challenge to the orphans’ court
finding that the Agency met its burden under Section 2511(a)(8) warrants no
relief. Although we acknowledge the commendable progress Mother by
achieving the goal of sobriety, the orphans’ court was not required to hold
Children’s lives “in abeyance” and sacrifice their “need for permanence and
stability” while waiting for Mother to alleviate all the conditions that led to
Children’s removal and placement in foster care. I.J., 972 A.2d at 11-12
(citations omitted).
Finally, we note that, although Mother does not raise a challenge to this
issue in her brief, the Agency met its burden under Section 2511(a)(8) and
____________________________________________
10 While the record demonstrates that Mother took steps to participate in the
attachment and bonding assessment and to engage in drug and alcohol
counseling after the termination petition was filed, the Adoption Act forecloses
our consideration of such efforts. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).
- 14 -
J-S35033-23
Section 2511(b) by presenting clear and convincing evidence that termination
of Mother’s parental rights best served the needs and welfare of Children. 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b); see also In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999,
1009 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (addressing lower court’s needs and welfare
analysis finding even where not expressly challenged by parent). Pursuant to
Section 2511(a)(8), the orphans’ court must find that “termination of parental
rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(a)(8). As we have explained,
while both Section 2511(a)(8) and Section 2511(b) direct us to
evaluate the “needs and welfare of the child,” we are required to
resolve the analysis relative to Section 2511(a)(8), prior to
addressing the “needs and welfare” of [the child], as pr[e]scribed
by Section 2511(b); as such, they are distinct in that we must
address Section 2511(a) before reaching Section 2511(b).
C.L.G., 956 A.2d at 1009.
Under Section 2511(b), the orphans’ court must “give primary
consideration to the development, physical and emotional needs and welfare
of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). “The emotional needs and welfare of the
child have been properly interpreted to include intangibles such as love,
comfort, security, and stability.” T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 (citation and
quotation marks omitted); see also In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085,
1106 (Pa. 2023). The Section 2511(b) analysis is focused on the needs and
welfare of the child over the concerns of the parent, and each child’s particular
developmental, physical, and emotional needs must be assessed on a case-
by-case basis. K.T., 296 A.3d at 1105; In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d
- 15 -
J-S35033-23
580, 593 (Pa. 2021). The lower court must consider “the emotional bonds
between the parent and child,” with the threshold for the bond inquiry being
whether termination will sever a “necessary and beneficial relationship,” such
that the child could suffer “extreme emotional consequences” or “significant,
irreparable harm.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1109-10 (citation omitted); T.S.M., 71
A.3d at 267. A court engaging in a Subsection 2511(b) inquiry must also
consider, as appropriate, the child’s need for permanency and length of time
in foster care; the child’s placement in a pre-adoptive home and whether there
is a bond with the foster parents; and whether the foster home meets the
child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs. K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113.
The testimony presented by the Agency at the April 6, 2023 hearing
demonstrated that Children had little, if any, bond with Mother; that any harm
caused by severance of what bond exists between Mother and Children would
be offset by the strong bond that Children had with the foster parents who
supported their developmental, physical, and emotional needs; and that
Children expressed a preference to not be returned to Mother’s care. Maddie
Sell, a counselor who was accepted by the lower court as an expert in child
attachment and bonding, testified that there was “chronic and severe
attachment disruption” between Mother and Children based upon Mother’s
avoidant attachment parenting style as well as her drug use and that “the
parents have disengaged from [C]hildren . . . and then in turn [C]hildren have
disengaged from them.” N.T., 4/6/23, at 7-8. When asked whether there
was a bond between Mother and Children, Sell responded that she did not
- 16 -
J-S35033-23
believe a bond existed. Id. at 8. She stated that severing what little bond
does exist would “certainly” have an “impact” because Children have
experienced “a significant level of traumatic stress” from their upbringing but
that impact would be “mitigated if [Children] were in an . . . environment that
fostered [a] healthy secure attachment.” Id.
Sell, who observed Children with the foster family, believed that
Children’s relationship with their foster parents was healthy and secure. Id.
at 9-10. She noted that Children were “very excited to tell [her]” about the
activities they were engaged in at their foster home. Id. at 10. Sell stated
that all of the Children were aware that the attachment with their natural
parents had been “severed.” Id. at 8-9. R.G.D., the eldest, stated that she
thinks termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights is “a good thing” and
that the foster parents were able to provide Children with the stability and
structure that their natural parents could not. Id. at 15-16. The next eldest,
B.C.D., also expressed to Sell a preference to stay with the foster parents.
Id. at 16.
Shawley, the Agency caseworker, testified that she observes Children in
the foster home at least once per month and that they have “natural” and
“positive” relationships with their foster parents. Id. at 37-39, 45. The foster
parents are attentive to Children’s emotional needs and involve Children in
various activities, such as wrestling, T-ball, cheerleading, and Boy Scouts. Id.
at 39-40. Shawley has spoken with each of the four Children and confirmed
that they “wish to stay where they’re at” and that their relationship with the
- 17 -
J-S35033-23
foster parents is safe and stable. Id. at 39, 45, 49. According to Shawley,
R.G.D. enjoys having freedom from acting in a parental role towards her
younger siblings, as well as the opportunity to have a part-time job at a pizza
parlor. Id. at 40, 49.
R.G.D. and B.C.D. expressed to Shawley that “the things that they were
going through prior to placement were not okay and they did not feel safe and
they don’t ever want to live through that again.” Id. at 45. Shawley further
stated that Children have not expressed a desire to have contact with either
Mother or Father, they do not miss their natural parents, and “even when they
were first placed with the [foster parents], [Children] only ever asked about”
Father. Id. at 45-46. R.G.D. stated to Shawley that “she’s never had any
type of relationship with” Mother. Id. at 46.
Children’s GAL informed the orphans’ court at the May 3, 2023 hearing
that Children are flourishing in their foster home, highlighting the
improvement of Children in that home, including that G.A.L.D. no longer
requires an individualized education program. N.T., 5/3/23, at 13. The GAL
stated that Children have a bond with their current foster family, and they do
not want to return to living with their natural parents. Id. The GAL opined
that it is in the best interest of Children that Mother’s parental rights be
terminated. Id. Children’s legal counsel indicated to the court that he spoke
with each of the four Children and that “their desire [is] to stay where they
are, to not be reunited with” Mother. Id. at 14. Counsel further stated that
Children are “well bonded with the foster parents.” Id.
- 18 -
J-S35033-23
Therefore, the evidence additionally supports the orphans’ court’s
finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children best served
their needs and welfare under Section 2511(a)(8) and (b). As Mother has
demonstrated no basis for overturning the appealed-from termination, we
affirm the orphans’ court’s May 31, 2023 decrees.
Decrees affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/20/2023
- 19 -